|
Post by Josh on Jun 12, 2010 20:12:49 GMT -8
We don't know the nature of Satan. I guess I don't have a problem with God destroying one of his creations when it has served it's purpose. Satan would not necessarily be punished for choosing evil, but rather he is destroyed with everything else that is not fit for eternity when it's time had come. Revelation 20 tells us that the Devil, death and hades were all thrown into the lake of fire. I think this is just John's way of saying that these things are to be destroyed when there is not longer any need for them. Animals and pets may fall into the same category. We have no guarantee that our pets will be resurrected and live eternally with us in heaven, and I assume that if they do not we will not find fault in god for "punishing" our animals for doing nothing wrong. I agree that causing something to cease to exist when it has ceased to fulfill it's purpose is not inherently wrong. But that's not punishment. What I'm saying is that it is inconsistant with God's revealed nature to find fault with/ assign blame to a creature who had no free will. Do we agree on that at least? Is it just that you're still not convinced from Scripture that God indeed does find blame with satan? Because God knew that he could work all things, even evil things which he did not sanction, together in the end for good- and for a good that would be better than if there had not been any free will.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 13, 2010 7:29:49 GMT -8
I'm not convinced that God blames Satan for being Satan. That is, I don't see God blaming Satan for testing humanity. Of course I assume that you will recall the story of the serpent in the garden, so let me give my understanding of this story now.
First of all every time I see a snake, I don't assume that it is the devil slithering by. So I can't view God's cursing of the serpent as a punishment for Satan. I think God chose to curse the serpent as a reminder to humanity of it's fall. I also don't believe that snakes are suffering from this curse.
Agreed.
So, it does appear that you see that the tempting of humanity by Satan as a good thing right?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 16, 2010 14:27:37 GMT -8
Then I'd be interested in hearing your take on the above points I've made from Scripture about why I think the bible does indicate that God does blame satan for his actions and considers him guilty of them.
I agree with this whole paragraph, but do you agree with me that the "snake" in the garden was most likely an animal possessed by satan?
Good for whom? Certainly it wasn't good for satan. And I don't think in and of itself it was a good thing. It is only a good thing because God has redeemed it.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 16, 2010 16:41:12 GMT -8
Hi josh,
Which ones? I responded to John 16, and the other references I see are suspect at best. The wisdom of Solomon, and the book of Enoch? I wouldn't base my theology on either book, and your quote from the book of Jude comes from Jewish tradition, not scripture.
I think that is likely, but I don't insist upon it. If it is the case, what difference does it make? It was the serpent that was sentenced to crawl on it's belly, and not Satan.
In my opinion it is neither good or bad for Satan, it just is what it is.
Don't you think it was God's intention that man would fall by coming to know good and evil in order that man would freely choose good? You say "it is only good because God redeemed it", but I would go further and say that God has not only redeemed humanity but what He has redeemed is far better than what He would have had if man had not fallen. I think that the fall of humanity was inevitable. This seems to be one of the main points that CS Lewis makes in his book Perilandra. Had Adam and Eve not fallen for the serpents deception that is recorded in Genesis, I believe that more temptations would have come until Adam and Eve fell. I believe that there may very well have been attempts to deceive Adam and Eve prior to what we have recorded, but that is simply speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Jun 16, 2010 17:08:53 GMT -8
Does Satan posess the ability to distinguish good and evil? My upbringing would say that he is pure evil, without the ability for good. This would explain the WHY in his actions, despite him knowing the inevitable futility of his attempts.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 16, 2010 19:17:44 GMT -8
Does Satan posess the ability to distinguish good and evil? My upbringing would say that he is pure evil, without the ability for good. This would explain the WHY in his actions, despite him knowing the inevitable futility of his attempts. I don't know that we can say for certain one way or the other. It may be kind of like asking whether a a dog knows good from evil. Scripture certainly indicates that people know the difference because of our partaking from the tree of knowledge, as for Satan I can't say. My guess is that Satan is just simply driven by his nature to do what it is that he was created for, and that is to tempt humanity with evil.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 19, 2010 20:44:55 GMT -8
This is very important to this debate.
Did God merely curse the animal or did he curse Satan?
Yes, it does appear that the animal satan used was cursed, but not because the snake was at fault, but apparently as a reminder of satan's actions through it. The New Testament makes it clear that the curse of the serpent is a curse on satan himself, if it isn't clear enough from Genesis 3:15. Paul references this passage not in regard to snakes, but in regard to satan:
Romans 16:20
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
Let's step back a moment. Wouldn't you agree that in Genesis 3:11-19, we are seeing God pronouncing guilt and judgment on the serpent (satan), adam, and eve? All three receive similiar rebukes from God.
God tells satan that he is cursed because he has done this which implies that he could have chosen not to do it as well (3:14). Again, for God to impose a curse on someone for something they were actually sent by him to do doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 19, 2010 23:14:07 GMT -8
As a reminder certainly, but I would say that it was a reminder to humanity of Adam and Eve's choice.
Romans 16:20
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
Right. God intends to use the church to overcome evil. I don't see how this makes it any clearer that Satan ever had a choice in the matter.
Well, I can see where Adam, Eve, and the Serpent were punished, but I don't see how Satan was punished. How is it that Satan was punished?
But how is this punishment for Satan when Satan can simply cease to posses the serpent, leaving the punishment behind?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 21, 2010 6:53:50 GMT -8
Robin- you did not respond to these points I made:
On a related note, if demons are to be said to be like satan, and merely "testers" send by God, then why are demons likewise judged and punished by God for something they cannot help, but were rather sent to do?
What about 2 Peter 2:4 which clearly says that some angels have sinned and have been judged (again, only possible with free will):
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
And Jude 1:6
And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
Why do the demons shudder at the thought of God (James 2:19) if they are merely his servants? Isn't it because he will judge them for their guilty actions? You will say it is merely because they know one day they will become obsolete and be destroyed, but the two verses above strongly imply that it is actually because of their guilt.
Also, you can't explain away Jude 1:9 just by saying it quotes a non-canonical book. The fact still remains that Jude, the brother of Jesus, was trying to make a point about the devil- that the Lord will rebuke him.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 21, 2010 6:59:11 GMT -8
robin wrote:
The point of quoting Romans 16:20 was to show that indeed, at least a portion of the judgment in Genesis 3 did apply to satan, and is therefor something he cannot leave behind:
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."
The New Testament applies at least this second part to satan, not primarily to the snake.
Satan was to be punished by being ultimately defeated by a child of the race he sought to ruin.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 21, 2010 8:11:17 GMT -8
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."
One could make that conclusion, but I don't think its necessary.
I think Paul describes the fulfillment of the prophecy in Colossians.
Colossians 2:13-15 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
The passages from both Genesis and Colossians, deal with the destruction of Satan's power over humanity. But neither, in my opinion, state that Satan ever had a choice in the matter.
Also, I never did get a response from this statement.
"Don't you think it was God's intention that man would fall by coming to know good and evil in order that man would freely choose good? You say "it is only good because God redeemed it", but I would go further and say that God has not only redeemed humanity but what He has redeemed is far better than what He would have had if man had not fallen. I think that the fall of humanity was inevitable. This seems to be one of the main points that CS Lewis makes in his book Perilandra. Had Adam and Eve not fallen for the serpents deception that is recorded in Genesis, I believe that more temptations would have come until Adam and Eve fell. I believe that there may very well have been attempts to deceive Adam and Eve prior to what we have recorded, but that is simply speculation."
I would like to know what your thoughts are. Was the fall inevitable or not?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 14, 2010 17:07:42 GMT -8
I didn't realize this thread was still hanging. The topic is fresh in my mind as I'm reading through Boyd's God at War.Even in the passage you quote above, we have a situation in which God is shaming the powers and principalities (the metaphor is of a Roman triumphal procession in which captured slaves were demeaned in front of the cheering crowds). God would not shame a power that was merely his unwilling tool. I really can't say but my gut is no, the fall was not inevitable. And, it's been a while, but weren't there worlds which never fell in the cosmology of the space trilogy? Next I'd like to add some comments from Boyd that I think underscore my thoughts on this subject. I'll be back, but for now: “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Gregory Boyd to Robin. Let him convince him!"
“Abraham replied, ‘He has Josh and his arguments; let him listen to them.’
“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if Gregory Boyd goes to him, he will change his mind.’
“He said to him, ‘If he does not listen to Josh's arguments, he will not be convinced even if Boyd calls him long distance.’”
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 14, 2010 17:38:55 GMT -8
Here's an example of a passage which simultaneously argues for an open theist perspective and a belief in real, willful, culpable evil spiritual forces in rebellion against God:
"from ...the....Hellenistic traidition, the church arrived at the notion that God was altogether unmoved, impassible, immutable, nontemporal and purely actual. Yet it was precisely these features of the church's doctrine of God that logically undermined the integrity of the warfare worldview*. On the basis of this model of God, a meticulous, sovreign, divine blueprint was postulated to encompass all temporal events, including the cosmic war.
This had the effect, however, or rendering the war a sham. For a war that meticulously follows a blueprint that has been drawn up by one of the parties involved in the war (God) is hardly a real war. "
I think this logic applies not only to Calvinism, but also to the idea that the "dark powers" are merely, after all, God's instruments. Such an idea renders the idea of "spiritual warfare" a sham. It seems like what you've been advocating isn't after all a war but only ever merely a test staged by God- and the two are very different.
*his whole book is about recovering what he considers to be the biblical view of a cosmos in the midst of titanic struggle.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 14, 2010 18:47:57 GMT -8
So Josh, who is at war according to the bible? Is it believers? God? or both? If God is at war with principalities and powers (Satan and demons) than He isn't very omnipotent is He?
However, if believers are at war with them, than the war is real even if God "arranged" it as you say. No sham there as far as I can see. God's war is with sin in my understanding, not Satan and Demons.
You seem to think it a monstrous idea for God to create a tester for mankind, but it still leaves the problem of Him leaving one here. I know you think there's a vast difference, but I don't see it.
If a armed cop stands by and watches a robbery take place at knife point, what's his level of responsibility for that robbery? Is it much less than if he himself hired the robber to do it? Not in my book.
Now let's suppose the victim was the cops' cadet son and the cop did hire the robber because he wanted to test his sons' reaction under pressure, martial arts skills, etc. to make him more prepared for the force. Is it a different scenario then? The conflict is still very real for the son, but the father is justified in standing by and watching to a certain extent. If he needs to, the armed cop can take the robber out at any time, but then the son would be denied the valuable experience.
Weak analogy I know. But then again we're dealing with spiritual questions and no analogy can get us all the way there.
At the end of the day, we still have no compelling evidence that Satan was created a good angel and rebelled. We simply don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 14, 2010 20:11:26 GMT -8
Actually, Boyd is taking the position that God Himself is at war with the enemy. Scripture backs this up so I'm not sure how it could be denied (?) As to the implications of this regarding his omnipotence, he hasn't developed that too much yet by chapter 5 except to note that although the conflict is always portrayed as real and costly, God is "more than up to the challenge".
As I said, you should read the book when I'm done. I didn't think there was more data that could be gleaned on the subject, but he definitely was able to bring more evidence to bear in favor of the traditional understanding of satan-as-rebellious-angel.
I'm trying to figure out why I"m so convinced that it's very different for God to allow something rather than to perpetrate it and you're so unconvinced. I have a hunch that it has something to do with the role you're assigning God in your analogy, but I can't piece it together yet.
But still at the end of the day I don't understand how you can say what you just said and at the same time see a big difference between God causing illnesses or just allowing them to happen as part of his creation, or God allowing people to go to hell* and God pre-determining them to. Seems like the same thing to me. It's all about the difference between a first order of causation and a distant order of causation.
As I think a bit more on this (thinking outloud, so to speak), it seems like when you give analogies on this subject like the one above they are more about the theodicy of God not intervening at times rather than about why God would choose to allow something. In other words, you are charging God with the crime of not intervening against it, but that's a whole different charge than the charge of the crime itself. If the cop sends someone to murder someone that's a different "crime" than standing idly by. I'm much more comfortable with God saying "you don't understand everything" to my question of why He stood idly by than I am if He gave the response "I had it done to you!"
Brain is not functioning well today. Does that make any sense?
*assuming for the moment you put on the traditional view of hell (which I know you're undecided on)
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 14, 2010 20:44:12 GMT -8
Just a few references to God being at war:
Exodus 14:14 The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still.
Exodus 14:25 He jammed the wheels of their chariots so that they had difficulty driving. And the Egyptians said, “Let’s get away from the Israelites! The LORD is fighting for them against Egypt.”
Zechariah 14:3 Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 14, 2010 21:33:55 GMT -8
As I predicted, Boyd does go on to argue that the prophecies against Sennacherib and the king of Tyre do have something to tell us about Satan. I'll let you guys read why, but something else came to my mind as I was reading in Mark:
Mark 3:
20 Then the multitude came together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. 21 But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.” 22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebub,” and, “By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.” 23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end. 27 No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.
Isn't the argument the scribes make similar to the claim that demons are merely God's agents? If demons are merely God's agents to accomplish negative things, if Jesus is not on the opposing side to the demons, then Jesus really is the "ruler of demons" and is working against his own agenda. Plus, in this analogy Jesus doesn't enter the strong man's house and thank him for doing His will, pay him for his services, and send him off. No, he binds him up as a malicious enemy and then plunders him of his possessions- something you would only do to your enemy not to your servant.
|
|